( 1 ) THOUGH this application apparently looks as an innocuous application for recalling the order dated 11. 7. 2000, dismissing Civil Revision Application No. 1672 of 1980 for default, on closer scrutiny, it is found that the application is not bona fide and genuine. Normally, when a matter is dismissed for default by this Court, a liberal view is required to be taken, for setting aside the order, dismissing the matter for default, and for restoring the matter to file. But, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, in my view, this is not a case in which this Court would like to exercise its discretion by allowing this Miscellaneous Civil application.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this M. C. A. are as under :- respondent No. 1 instituted a suit, being Regular civil Suit No. 106 of 1972, which was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Bharuch. The said suit was filed against one Ganesh Cotton Agent, a partnership firm and the partners of the said firm were also joined as defendants in the said suit. Respondent no. 2 herein, Dhansukhlal Bhogilal Nanavati, was one of the partners of the said firm. Since he has died, his heirs are brought on record. There were other defendants, who were joined in the suit, with which we are not concerned in the present MCA. The said suit was filed for getting a decree for possession on the ground of sub-letting as well as on the ground of erection of permanent structure on the part of the aforesaid defendants, who were given the property in question on leasehold basis. The trial court, vide its judgment and order dated 30th September, 1978, dismissed the said suit, against which respondent No. 1 herein (original landlord) preferred an appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal no. 73 of 1978, before the District Court at Bharuch. Respondent No. 1 filed the said appeal against the present petitioners as well as respondent No. 2.

( 3 ) THE appellate court allowed the said appeal by reversing the judgment and order of the trial court and the suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed, with costs, all throughout. Original defendants 1, 2 and 3 (which include the present petitioners and respondent no. 2 herein) and other defendants, i. e. defendants 21 and 22, were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the extent to which they were shown to be in the possession in the proceedings. Against the aforesaid decree of the appellate court, two civil Revision Applications were filed before this Court. So far as Civil Revision Application No. 1672 of 1980 is concerned, the same was filed by the present petitioners. So far as respondent No. 2 (another partner of the partnership firm) is concerned, he filed another revision, being Civil Revision Application No. 1748 of 1980. It is an admitted fact that both these revision applications were ordered to be heard together at the time of admitting the revisions.

( 4 ) WHEN the aforesaid matters reached final hearing before the learned single Judge on 11. 7. 2000, the Court, while dismissing the matters for default, observed as under in its order, which is at page 11 in the compilation :-". . . . . . . . . 1. These revisions u/s 29[2] of the Bombay Rent Act are very old matters of the year 1980. They were placed on the final hearing board on 12th June 2000. On that day, it was mentioned on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 1748/80 that the matters are probably settled. In order to ascertain whether the matter was settled and if so, to place on record the settlement, or for withdrawal of the matters, these matters were adjourned to 19th of June 2000. However, since 19th of June 2000, none of the learned counsel appearing in these matters has approached the Court either for recording the settlement or for proceeding with the matter. This is the position even today. These matters are therefore, dismissed for default. Rule discharged with no